LESSONS IN LOGIC: Calling Something ‘Hate Speech’ IS Hate Speech

We live in a society where it is increasingly popular to label something we do not like or want to hear as ‘hate speech.’ Then we seek to silence it based on the assumption that ‘hate’ should not be allowed. The problem with this line of thinking is that it is actually worse than hate speech. Not only is it a sign of hate in itself, but it is an actual action, which is far more harmful than mere words.

There was a time when the political Left in this country would have defended free speech. They would have fought any attempt to censor someone as a violation of their rights. But this was back when the political Left was weak; a minority force in the body politic. This is no longer the case. The political Left, or Progressivism, has now reached a parity with those who still seek to preserve the original principles and ideals of this nation: namely the preservation of individual rights and liberties. Now that Progressivism has gained a position of power, it seeks to do what it always does — silence any and all opposition!

Historically, when trying to destroy a Judeo/Christian based Western society, this spirit of Progressivism has sought to do so by using some supposed claim of moral superiority. This is why they argue the collective over the individual: because ignorant and improperly educated individuals will usually accept the fallacy that the good of the whole outweighs that of the few or the one. This may be true in a society where the State is the only entity with rights, but in a society of free and self-governing people (i.e. individuals), it is a lie! How can one argue for the protection of a minorty’s rights such as those of the LGBTV community while trampling on the rights of the individual? How much smaller a minority can there be than the single person? So, if someone is willing to trample on an individual’s rights in the name of protecting the rights of a ‘minority group,’ then they have demonstrated they don’t really care about minority rights at all. That person is furthering another agenda; a hidden agenda which is actually counter to the rights of every individual but the person pushing the protection of what is — in reality — a politically favored class of people. This, my dear reader, is class warfare, and it has nothing to do with liberty. It is all about control.

So, how is class warfare connected to the accusations of ‘hate speech?’ To understand the connection, you have to understand the process of the Progressive. In other countries, where the people do not come from a tradition of individual rights and liberties,, those who seek to control others can simply do so at the point of a gun. But where the people once embraced individual rights and liberty, it is not so easy to just take over. So Progressives devised a strategy of taking over a little piece at a time. They have been following this strategy for over a century, and, now, they are powerful enough that they can finally start exerting overt force over the people. But they must silence any and all opposition to do so. Otherwise, voices such as mine might expose them for what they are: despots and tyrants!

Therefore, once they have the power to enforce it –as they do now — Progressives will start to label voices such as mire as ‘hate.’ They will call it ‘racist,’ or ‘xenophobic‘ or whatever they need to make it seem like they are taking the moral high ground. then they will use this assumed position of moral authority as an excuse to silence people because, after all, no one believes that people should be allowed to hate. But look at what they are doing. Because they hate people being free to live their own lives, they are willing to silence, imprison and even kill them. How is that not actual hate? How is it not hate to tell someone else they cannot think for themselves, or say what they think? It seems to me that this is part of the very definition of hate — at least in connection to politics and liberty.

When they label something as ‘hate’ and then make it illegal, they are actually saying they have a right to control every aspect of who you are. You see, your most basic right is the right to your own self; to who you are. This is your free will. It is what you think, believe and feel. This is a Natural Right which cannot be morally or justly taken from you. Anyone who tries to do so is actually saying they own you. After all, if they claim the power to tell you what you can and cannot think — if they claim the power of controlling thought crime — then they are claiming they have complete ownership of you!

So, if we are for silencing ‘hate speech,’ how can we say we are against slavery? How much more can one claim to own another person than claiming the right to tell them what they can and cannot think or say? And how, then, is it not hate to claim we not only own a person, but also their entire being — even their free will?

The conclusions are simple. Either we fight anyone and everyone who seeks to silence free speech, or we concede that we really do not have a problem with slavery — just so long as we are one of the masters…

[NOTE: I no longer think of my voice as anything special. There was a time when I believed I had something important to say, but not so much these days. I write now because I feel driven to do so. Something inside me will not let me rest until I post the pages you just read. I’d just as soon not bother anymore. It all seems like no one is listening and I do more harm than good. So I have come to trust that whatever it is driving me has all this under control. Personally, I believe it is God, but others may not. All I ask is that, if anything I write helps you, or you think it might help others in any way, please, share this page. Re-blog it, share it on FB or send the link to your friends. So long as you feel it will do more good than harm, then please, use this page however you wish. Thank you.]